ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

21F-344-REL · Department of Real Estate · 2021-09-15

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Application for Original Real Estate Salesperson License of:

GRAMS, JESSE T., holder of License No. SA696605000 (Candidate),

Respondent.

No. 21F-344-REL

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 27, 2021

APPEARANCES: Jesse T. Grams represented himself. Assistant Attorney General

James Rolstead represented the Arizona Department of Real Estate. Senior Investigator Bret Biesenthal appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Kay Abramsohn

FINDINGS OF FACT

On June 4, 2021, the Arizona Department of Real Estate (“Department”) received an application for a real estate salesperson’s license from Jesse T. Grams (“Respondent”)

On that application, Respondent disclosed two prior offenses for which full records would not have been available:

A Misdemeanor in Lancaster County Court, Lincoln, Nebraska, in March 1993, for a minor in possession of alcoholic liquor, for which he was fined $100.00; and.

A Misdemeanor in Lancaster County Court, Lincoln, Nebraska, in May 1994 for DUI [driving under influence], for which he was fined $200.00.

By letter dated June 16, 2021, the Department sent Respondent a letter offering a provisional licensure and providing a consent order for completion of the application. The Department indicated that Respondent could accept the consent order no later than June 30, 2021 or appeal the denial of an unrestricted licensure.

On June 26, 2021, Respondent filed his appeal of the determination and requested an informal conference. Respondent noted that the disclosed offenses had occurred “over 2.5 decades ago” and that, since that time, he had held well-respected business positions and held numerous licenses and designations within the financial industry without any disciplinary action thereon.

The matter was not resolved informally by the parties and proceeded to administrative hearing.

At hearing, the Department argued that Respondent’s past offenses, despite being a long time ago, provided reason for the Department, under its authority to regulate persons engaged in real estate business, to consider offering a two-year provisional licensure to allow Respondent to work in the industry for that time period under the guidance of a practice monitor.

At hearing, Respondent argued that, while he acknowledged and took responsibility for those past actions (and satisfied all probation and fines), those actions had taken place when he was 19 and 20 years of age. Respondent argued that since that time, he was a different person and there were no such re-occurrences in the intervening 27 years. Arguing that the Department should reconsider this particular elapsed time period as to these youthful offenses, Respondent noted that, even within the realm of criminal offenses, the look back period as to any aggravation for a second DUI offense in Nebraska was 15 years and in Arizona was 7 years.

Respondent’s work experience since graduation from college in 1998 included garnering multiple professional certifications in the financial and securities industries and work histories with seven companies in various positions involving advisements and sales of investment products to the public and businesses. Respondent never failed any examination taken for such certifications; he indicated that some of the certifications were good for a two year period and then he would have to recertify. Respondent further indicated that, with regard to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) certification/testing process, an applicant must make disclosure as to criminal matters.

It was undisputed that Respondent was never terminated from any employment and that no claims were ever brought against him with regard to his business employment or business activities.

Respondent owned and managed multiple real estate properties in Nebraska.

For nearly 6 years, Respondent was the Director of a Sylvan Learning Center, which he likened to being a school principal, where his responsibilities included hiring certified educators teachers for the students (varied numbers in any given year).

While working for Paine Webber in Nebraska, and utilizing his good-standing record in Nebraska, in 1999, Respondent applied for and received an Arizona Insurance unrestricted license. At hearing, Respondent discussed his efforts to obtain documentation from the Arizona authority but learned that Arizona did not retain records of out-of-state licensure of Arizona licensees and that the Arizona records were purged after 10 years.

As part of this at-issue application process, in May 2021, Respondent obtained a Level One Fingerprint Clearance Card through Arizona DPS after their full background check. Respondent also provided documentation of his Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) Pre-check status.

Finally, Respondent argued that his credit history also demonstrated years of honesty, good character, trustworthiness and responsibility in paying bills, in that his score level over 810 was achieved only by 1 in 6 persons with an average credit score in the United States being a score of 710.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Department bears the responsibility to protect the public through its issuance of licenses, regulation of licensees, and enforcement of applicable licensing statutes. A.R.S. § 32-2153(B)(7) provides in relevant part as follows:

The commissioner may suspend or revoke a license, deny the issuance of a license, issue a letter of concern to a licensee, issue a provisional license or deny the renewal or the right of renewal of a license issued under this chapter when it appears that the holder or applicant has: . . . .

7. Not shown that the holder or applicant is a person of honesty,

truthfulness and good character.

Respondent bears the burden of proof and must establish that he meets statutory qualifications for a real estate salesperson’s license by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

The hearing record demonstrates Respondent’s twenty five-plus year history working in fields involving the need for honesty, good character, and truthfulness, both in in financial advice and financial securities and in the education of young people. The hearing record further demonstrates the absence of any criminal, civil or regulatory disciplinary actions for the time period since the 1993 and 1994 youthful offenses. Based on the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department’s mandate to protect the public would be met with a determination to issue a real estate salesperson license to Respondent who, at hearing, demonstrated himself to be a person of honesty, forthrightness, truthfulness, and good character.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The Commissioner shall reverse the decision to deny Respondent’s application for an unrestricted real estate salesperson’s license at this time and grant Respondent’s appeal.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order shall be five days from the date of the certification.

Done this day, September 14, 2021.

/s/ Kay A. Abramsohn

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Judy Lowe, Commissioner

Arizona Department of Real Estate